Will Bibi Break Obama?

The prime minister of Israel is angry with Barack Obama and is coming here to force a hardening of U.S. policy toward Iran.

“Bibi” Netanyahu had his anger on display at a meeting in Israel with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

McCain emerged saying he had never seen an Israeli prime minister “that unhappy.” “He was angry,” said McCain. “I’ve never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point.”

“The Israelis are unnerved,” said Graham. “They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and so do I.”

What has so enraged Netanyahu? The Obama policy of tightening sanctions on Iran while holding out the opportunity for Tehran to negotiate and provide guarantees that its nuclear program is not aimed at an atomic bomb.

The U.S. intelligence community unanimously believes that Iran is some time away, perhaps years, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon and has not made the command decision to build one.

Israel retorts that Iran is entering a “zone of immunity,” when Israel will lack the ability to attack and abort Iran’s nuclear program, as new nuclear sites are being moved underground. Netanyahu’s government is also angry at what it sees as U.S. leaders’ distancing themselves from Israel.

When that fifth Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated and Tehran accused America and Israel of complicity, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the murder, leaving Israel as prime suspect.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked to columnist David Ignatius that Israel might strike Iran in April, May or June, leaving no doubt as to who wants a war, while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden openly disparages Israel’s capacity to cripple Iran’s nuclear sites: “They only have the ability to make this worse.”

Adm. William Fallon, who headed U.S. Central Command, has been categorical: “No one I am aware of thinks that there is a positive outcome from a military strike” on Iran.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey has called Iran a “rational actor” and told the Israelis that for them to attack Iran now would be “premature,” “destabilizing” and imprudent.

Netanyahu said that Dempsey’s remarks “served Iran” and the general was “unwilling to aid Israel.”

Like Panetta, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he does not believe that Iran has decided to build a bomb, while National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spent three days in Israel, reportedly arguing against an Israeli attack.

“The Israelis are fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state’s threat to use force against Iran by publicly questioning the timing and utility of such strikes.” So write Jay Solomon and Carol Lee of The Wall Street Journal.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington, the Journal writers add, to demand that Obama spell out the “red lines” Iran will not be allowed to cross without triggering a U.S. attack.

What Netanyahu wants is a U.S. ultimatum to Iran.

White House sources say that when Obama meets Netanyahu Tuesday, he will reject the prime minister’s demands.

But the pressure to shorten the timetable for war is intense and growing.

Obama will speak Sunday to the annual assembly of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, all more hawkish than the president, have also been invited to address the conclave.

Three dozen senators have signed on to a resolution declaring it a U.S. “vital national interest” that Iran not possess even a “nuclear weapons capability.”

S.R. 380 reads like a resolution crafted as a casus belli, a cause for war. For South Korea, Brazil and Japan all have a “nuclear weapons capability,” as all have the industrial proficiency and technical know-how to build an atomic bomb, should they chose to do so.

The resolution demands that Iran halt all uranium production and end its ballistic missile program, and declares “unacceptable” any U.S. policy of containment of an Iran that is capable of building a bomb, even if Iran has decided not to build a bomb.

Containment succeeded with a Soviet Empire with 10,000 nuclear weapons, but is apparently inadequate for dealing with an Iran that has no atom bombs, only the potential to build one.

S.R. 380 points directly toward a U.S. war on Iran.

Who wants that war? Netanyahu, his government, and his allies in U.S. politics and the press, and in a Congress that gave him 29 standing ovations the last time he spoke there.

Who does not want a war?

The White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community, the antiwar left and Old Right, and millions of Americans who believe a U.S. war on Iran could ignite a sectarian and regional war that could prove catastrophic for the Middle East, the world economy and the United States of America.

Netanyahu is messing up. Likud and the neocons imagine that Obama fears being seen as weak, and therefore can’t afford not to bomb Iran on their command. Obama most likely understands that he can’t afford to bomb Iran at all; even cynically, politically speaking this is not a winner.

In fact, the strongest position is to hold his place against bombing Iran, use the neocon-sponsored media noise against the Republican candidate by forcing him into an unpopular position, since all the viable ones have pledged themselves to do what Bibi says. Obama will lose Fox News voters over this. But that’s like saying that Jack Daniels will lose the Saudi market.

Nobody has forgotten Iraq, Afghanistan is not even over. A third land war in Asia (and this will be the Army’s job, not the Air Force’s) is an absolute, no political upside loser in 2012. I have to believe that the President can see that as plain as day. And if I’m wrong, meh. I’ll vote for Gary Johnson.

Gasoline prices will skyrocket if Israel attacks Iran, with or without US support. Bibi might not understand this, but Barack certainly does. Obama can wrap up the election now if he publicly squashes Netanyahu like a bug, and AIPAC can go sulk and pout all it wants to without making a difference.

Pre-emptive war with Iran will complete the financial ruin of everyone except the Wall Street war profiteers.

Israel has always made plain it is only for its own interests and cares not a whit for any other nation’s. In their self-interest, they will sacrifice our populations callously without a moment’s hesitation. Every crisis for them is seen internally as existential, so nothing else matters to them. Their paranoia leaves no alternative but perpetual war, and our national interests – the well-being of our own population – matters not a bit.

We have cared so much and have nothing in return. We must turn back from the abyss they want to plunge us into, which in reality will create an even more insurmountable self-destruction to any peace whatsoever for them.

They must become a normal nation, not one that believes its viability must be based on creating forever weak, backward and autocratic states surrounding it.

New York Times is reporting amidst their drumbeats for pre-emptive war that Obama has indeed been what amounts to properly “broken by Bibi” and promises to go to war for Israel to “prevent” Iran getting nuclear bomb capability.

Interesting that some of the comments seem to suggest a belief that Obama will develop a spine and somehow stand up to Bibi. I think not. The only thing the president wants to ensure is his own re-election and going head-to-head with the Israel lobby is not the way to proceed with that goal in mind. I predict a complete cave-in by our head of state though he might try to sneak in a caveat or two to give himself some room to maneuver.

“Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked to columnist David Ignatius that Israel might strike Iran in April, May or June, leaving no doubt as to who wants a war,”

I share PG’s skepticism. It is clear that Israel is trying to blackmail the US to give an ironclad guarantee that the US will attack Iran if Israel “refrains” from doing so during its “closing window of opportunity.” That was made clear in the op-ed piece in the NY Times the other day by Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli intelligence, “Israel’s Last Chance to Attack Iran.” It appears that the Israeli game is to threaten an attack on Iran (probably knowing they can’t pull it off and fearful of the political and economic consequences) in order to blackmail the U.S. into giving a guarantee of a future attack by the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html?ref=opinion:

“Ensuring that Iran does not go nuclear is the best guarantee for long-term regional stability. A nonnuclear Iran would be infinitely easier to contain than an Iran with nuclear weapons.

President Obama has said America will “use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Israel takes him at his word.

The problem, however, is one of time. Israel doesn’t have the safety of distance, nor do we have the United States Air Force’s advanced fleet of bombers and fighters. America could carry out an extensive air campaign using stealth technology and huge amounts of ammunition, dropping enormous payloads that are capable of hitting targets and penetrating to depths far beyond what Israel’s arsenal can achieve.

This gives America more time than Israel in determining when the moment of decision has finally been reached. And as that moment draws closer, differing timetables are becoming a source of tension.

On Monday, Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are to meet in Washington. Of all their encounters, this could be the most critical. Asking Israel’s leaders to abide by America’s timetable, and hence allowing Israel’s window of opportunity to be closed, is to make Washington a de facto proxy for Israel’s security — a tremendous leap of faith for Israelis faced with a looming Iranian bomb. It doesn’t help when American officials warn Israel against acting without clarifying what America intends to do once its own red lines are crossed.

Mr. Obama will therefore have to shift the Israeli defense establishment’s thinking from a focus on the “zone of immunity” to a “zone of trust.” What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity — and all other options have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear quest — Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.

I hope Mr. Obama will make this clear. If he does not, Israeli leaders may well choose to act while they still can. “

Secretary Panetta’s choice of April, May or June was certainly not his invention but a reflection of what the Israelis were telling him. What would the Israelis choose those particular months? Are they so politically tone deaf that they don’t realize the impact an Israeli attack and its unpredictable consequences would have on the impending American elections in November? Or were the Israelis cynically choosing dates that would put maximum pressure on Obama? Being cynical myself, I can recognize cynicism when I see it, and I clearly think it’s the latter, for the last thing Obama would want is Israeli strikes that would send oil prices soaring and possibly involving the US in another military conflict in the Middle East 5 to 6 months before his upcoming election.

That doesn’t mean Obama won’t eventually do what the Israelis want. He made that clear in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg that appeared in the Atlantic today. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/ : “At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States “has Israel’s back,” and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.” He went on, “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”
* * *
The president also said that Tehran’s nuclear program would represent a “profound” national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran’s violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.

“You’re talking about the most volatile region in the world,” he said. “It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.” He went on to say, “The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.” ”

The views expressed by Obama in the interview with Goldberg are virtually unchanged from the views he expressed in an interview with the Chicago Tribune in 2004 less than two months before his election to the U.S. Senate. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage:
“Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.”

I am not sure why Pat is so confident about Obama’s resistance to an attack on Iran. His words and his history of actions as President certainly don’t give me any confidence that Obama will not eventually attack Iran. I think he will follow the examples of those other noble Democratic Presidents, Wilson and Johnson, who won reelection and then commenced stupid wars shortly following their inaugurations, WWI in 1917 and Vietnam in 1965. I think his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002 was a “one off,” as the British like to say, which gave him an unwarranted reputation as being anti-war. His escalation in Afghanistan and war against Libya clearly show otherwise. He is opposed to war with Iran only insofar that it adversely effects his chances at getting reelected. It’s all about the timing, imo.

Obama must not get a second term…If he does he will destroy this country more then he already has..
There will not be a third term, which means Obama will not have to answer to voter again….

Mitt Romney is the only hope to beat Obama. ~ The others are nothing more then accidents waiting to happen, (loose canons) …………
This process must be over and now so Romney can save his money to fight the one billion dollars that Obama will have…..
It’s stupid to prolong this war the candidates are wagering on each other…

Obama will take pieces of what they say about each other and use it to his benefit..(to no avail)

What the two imbeciles, Santorum and Ginrich are saying will only help Romney in the General..
If Mitt survives the primary he’s in like flint..

Does anybody really think that Romney will have an “Eisenhower moment” and put the interests of THIS country above those of our “friends” the Israelis? There isn’t ANYBODY in either major party (who has a snowball’s chance in Hell of occupying the Oval Office in the near future) that will do what should be done:

(1) Tell the Israelis in no uncertain terms that this country is committed to protecting the viability of Israel as a nation, but Americans won’t be sacrificed so that Likudnik dreams of “Greater Israel” can be realized.

(2) Tell the Palestinians that the price that they will have to pay for military ineptitude, and producing a repugnant “leader” like Arafat rather than a Gandhi, is that they will be forced to settle for the scraps of land that they have been able to hold on to. Assure them, and back it up with deeds, that we are not interested in financing Israeli theft of the few scraps of land that they have left for their pathetic little statelet.

(3) Tell the Iranians that we (America) are forced to live with North Korea as a nuclear power because, quite frankly, we did not want to pay the military price of preventing them from becoming one — or risk war with China in the bargain.

But one “nut case” regime with nukes is more than enough.

But before we do “(3)” above, we had better make sure that the people in THIS country are prepared to back up that ultimatum with the sacrifices that we may have to make to see it through.

The Iranians are at least a couple of degrees in magnitude more capable than Iraqis, and several degrees in magnitude more capable than Afghans.

We had better damn well prepare the people in this country for what it may cost us to back up our words with deeds.

Didn’t you leave out the “nut case” with the greatest number of nuclear warheads, Israel? In its brief 64 year modern history, Israel has been involved in more wars and attacked more countries than I can count (not to mention the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967). How many wars has Iran started in the past 100 years or more? How about zero. I’m not sure what you are basing your conclusion on that Iran is a “nut case.”

For what it’s worth I don’t think that Obama will “cave” to Bibi and take the U.S. to war with Iran. I don’t know about agreeing to any “red lines,” although I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bibi emerging from the talks claiming that he has, no matter the truth.

Think of it from Obama’s perspective: His most likely opponent—Romney—has got to be about the least of his other likely opponents hammering him on not going to war with Iran.

Obama also has to be worried about his left wing which is vociferously against any such war.

Obama also has to contend with the apparent fact that the great bulk of the permanent government (Defense, CIA, etc.) is against a war at this point.

And then he has to know the certainty that at the very least a war will shoot gas prices through the roof, cause the Dow to plunge, and do God knows what else too.

Plus, there’s *somewhat* of a limit on how much he can be attacked by Bibi, isn’t there? I mean, Bibi/Israel *itself* can’t really come out and attack Obama without risking a patriotic U.S. reaction telling them to go to hell.

And then even AIPAC and etc. can’t really go too far in this direction either. Witness, they really aren’t whacking him *now* for not going to war, are they? Instead they are saying they are just all about “red lines.” Going beyond that however, being so identified with a foreign power, I don’t know that you’d ever see AIPAC or etc. blatantly, openly, clearly taking a stance to denounce a U.S. President for not going to war for Israel. Just … a bit too far for them.

This, however, is not to say that *Israel* won’t launch an attack on Iran itself, and indeed move heaven and earth to get the U.S. involved. (Maybe even beforehand via some sleight of hand or manuever.) Of an Israeli attack, yeah, I’d say the odds are at least a little better than 50% the Bibi will do so.

But not by the U.S. via Obama in agreement with Bibi. So far Obama has indeed bent very far; very very far indeed, but he always seems to stop before actually, totally breaking, and I think that’s an interesting pattern.

I was surprised to see Sherrod Brown on there as he had voted against the Iraq war resolution. Then I remembered a few years ago Schumer and co threw an iraq vet named Paul Hackett under the bus in favor of Brown. This is payback for that I gather.

“I was surprised to see Sherrod Brown on there as he had voted against the Iraq war resolution. Then I remembered a few years ago Schumer and co threw an iraq vet named Paul Hackett under the bus in favor of Brown. This is payback for that I gather.”

Brown is running for reelection this year, and his Republican opponent is likely to be a Jewish neoconservative, Josh Mandel, who is favored to win the Republican Senate primary this coming Tuesday. Mandel holds the distinction of being the only Republican I have ever heard CNN’s Gloria Borger speak enthusiastically about (on The Chris Mathews Show this past year).

Iran will almost certainly insist on the right to control nuclear fuel cycle for the nuclear power plants. Iran offered last year to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, but the US did not respond to the offer.

“I predict a complete cave-in by our head of state though he might try to sneak in a caveat or two to give himself some room to maneuver.”

PG, although I still share your skepticism and have no more faith in Obama’s backbone than you, I subsequently compared more closely Obama’s words in the 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune and his words in this past week’s interview with The Atlantic, and think I have detected a subtle shift. Whereas in 2004 Obama was talking in terms of halting Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, last week he seemed to draw the “red line” at Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon. This might form a face-saving compromise between the parties, since the leader of Iran recently again declared that nuclear weapons were “evil” and U.S. intelligence agencies recently declared that there was no evidence Iran was building a bomb. Iran would be permitted to continue its nuclear enrichment program under international supervision while pledging not to develop a bomb, the U.S. would have to pledge not to attack Iran and the economic sanctions would be lifted. The Israelis are probably not going to be happy, but such a plan has the added advantage that it appears to correspond with Mitt Romney’s “red line” (“If you elect Obama, Iran will have the bomb; if you elect me, Iran will not have the bomb.”). Even I regard this outcome as a little Pollyannaish, but it’s a lot better than seeing a dreary replay of Groundhog Day.

“I’ve never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point.” Let’s rephrase it: “I’ve never seen US-X relations at this point”, where X is any country on earth. There was a time when such a statement would spell trouble for X. Now it’s trouble for the US. This says it all.

Well Obama’s spoken at AIPAC now, and spoken with Netanyahu too, and from the admittedly early reports it doesn’t seem Bibi has broken him too far.

You just gotta believe that (or, rather, I just gotta believe) that a smart guy like Obama figures that losing some domestic jewish support for reelection isn’t as bad as the consequences of an attack on Iran. Some of which—sky-high gas prices—are certain, and some of which, while uncertain, are really really terrible.

Israel will not attack Iran they want us to and they want to keep their pilots safe from the russian anti aircraft batteries. No this time after two miserable wars it’s insane to ask us to go to war with a nation a Phil Giarldi has stated has not started a war in a 100 years. No this time if this is such a threat to Israel let them go it alone. I think Israel can not afford this war because the backlash Iran will most probably rain downs on them which will make the Israeli citizens suffer a-lot more than the many panic attacks they suffered from the Hezbullah nightmare but this time it will be honest to goodness the same nightmares the people of Lebanon suffered of real life missile attacks a-lot more accurate then they are use to hitting civilian targets. They been threatening attacks for months does anybody still believe them going ahead with us not helping? Not me!

“You just gotta believe that (or, rather, I just gotta believe) that a smart guy like Obama figures that losing some domestic jewish support for reelection isn’t as bad as the consequences of an attack on Iran. Some of which—sky-high gas prices—are certain, and some of which, while uncertain, are really really terrible.”

If Obama had any balls, he would call Netanyahu’s bluff. He would say, Mr. Prime Minister, as you well know, we have no treaty obligations, so you are free to take any actions you want. But the lack of treaty obligations works both ways. We are NOT Israel’s allies, despite all the loose talk about “Israel being our closest ally.” What you are proposing to do is in violation of international law, attacking a country that has not attacked you. That is something Adolph Hitler would do. And your actions threaten to disrupt the world economy in ways unknown. In the event you decide to launch attacks against Iran, how do you know we won’t send American planes to intercept Israeli planes? What assurance do you have that a Security Council resolution condemning Israel in the hashest terms and imposing sanctions on Israel that will bring Israel to its knees. And not only will we not exercise our “despicable veto,” but the U.S. will be the country introducing the resolution. Say good-bye to Israel’s $3+ billion a year subsidy from the U.S. Now, if you want to leak to the press what I just told you, go ahead. As you realize, I am up for reelection this year, but so are you. I may actually improve my chances at being reelected if this message gets out, but I will bet you many times $10,000 that you and your party will be swept out of office by the Israeli voters. They certainly don’t want to lose access to the federal tit, any more than certain segments of the American public. And they won’t want to keep in office an arrogant a__hole who destroyed Israel’s most important asset, the American relationship, without which Israel couldn’t survive. I don’t think there are that many Jews in China that would force that country to pick up the mantle.

If Obama came close to telling this to Netanyahu, I might actually vote for him a second time.

The U.S. has to realistically redefine an ally. Is it the one wishing to see it surfing happily a sea of global friendships and partnerships or the one doing its best to help it sink to the bottom of an ocean of self-destruction?

When you try to take away peoples’ right to self-defense by attacking them it gives them all the more right and reason to acquire latest and most effective means to defend themselves.